Dial up need not open. I don't have any idea how much truth is contained within, but it definately makes you think. :eek: I'm sure someone will put a stop to this video before long. Strange that it's a UK website. :hmm:

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

broken link... :crybaby:

guess the gov't got to it before i did cause all i got was this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><!-- Copy and paste the url into your newsreader application" -->
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/">



<channel rdf:about="http://javascript.about.com/b">
<title>About Focus on JavaScript</title>
<link>http://javascript.about.com/</link>
<description>Get the latest headlines from the About.com Focus on JavaScript GuideSite.</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>javascript</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2006-04-23T15:14:04Z</dc:date>
<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="" />

<items>
<rdf:Seq>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://javascript.about.com/b/256791.htm" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://javascript.about.com/b/256790.htm" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://javascript.about.com/b/256789.htm" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://javascript.about.com/b/151003.htm" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://javascript.about.com/b/256787.htm" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://javascript.about.com/b/256786.htm" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://javascript.about.com/b/256785.htm" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://javascript.about.com/b/256784.htm" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://javascript.about.com/b/256783.htm" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://javascript.about.com/b/256782.htm" />
</rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256791.htm">
<title>Watercolour Mixer</title>
<link>http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256791.htm</link>
<description>If you are interested in painting with watercolours then here is a unique Javascript that will interest you. Find out the effect of mixing watercolour paints together without using any...</description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-04-24T15:32:48Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256790.htm">
<title>Putting it all Together</title>
<link>http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256790.htm</link>
<description>The final tutorial in the "Learn Javascript" series reviews whay you have learned so far and what options you have to further develop your Javascript skills. There is also a...</description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-04-23T15:14:04Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256789.htm">
<title>Internet Explorer and Objects</title>
<link>http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256789.htm</link>
<description>After Microsoft lost a court case, Internet Explorer has been changed so that objects in the web page (put there using the <object> or <embed> tag) must now ask for...</description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-04-22T02:34:41Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://javascript.about.com/b/a/151003.htm">
<title>Loan Amount Calculator</title>
<link>http://javascript.about.com/b/a/151003.htm</link>
<description>Are you loaning out money? Perhaps people sometimes need to borrow money to be able to afford to buy your products. If your visitors know how much they can afford...</description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-04-21T12:09:43Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256787.htm">
<title>document.write</title>
<link>http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256787.htm</link>
<description>While document.write is the easiest way to use Javascript to add content into a web page it has a number of limitations on how it works and where you can...</description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-04-20T15:46:09Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256786.htm">
<title>Pattern Reference</title>
<link>http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256786.htm</link>
<description>The series of tutorials on "Regular Expressions" concludes with a complete reference to all of the patterns that you can use in your Javascript Regular Expressions and what they all...</description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-04-19T15:58:46Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256785.htm">
<title>Cryptograms</title>
<link>http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256785.htm</link>
<description>Shake the cobwebs off of those code breaking skills you learned back at school and see if you can work out the substitution cipher my Javascript generated cryptogram uses. Once...</description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-04-18T07:21:32Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256784.htm">
<title>"Head Rush Ajax"</title>
<link>http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256784.htm</link>
<description>If you know some basic Javascript and want to learn how to do data lookups from the server then Head Rush Ajax is the book that you are looking for....</description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-04-17T14:20:39Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256783.htm">
<title>Defining Classes</title>
<link>http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256783.htm</link>
<description>The one thing that makes the biggest difference between a structured program and an object oriented program is the ability to define your own classes of objects. The thirty fifth...</description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-04-16T15:36:06Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256782.htm">
<title>Mathematical Arrays</title>
<link>http://javascript.about.com/b/a/256782.htm</link>
<description>If you have several arrays that contain numbers and you want to make working with those arrays easier then take a look at my mathArray class which provides built in...</description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-04-15T15:28:47Z</dc:date>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>

Sorry :thepan: :thepan: (dumb Rolex) give it another click. ;)

guess the gov't got to it before i did

Oh no....then you must watch the video while wearing a tin foil hat so "they" cannot read your mind. :hide:

Rolex that video has been out for a while. It does get you thinking though.

Welcome To Last Year...i Mean 2 Years Ago!

Is that the tinfoil hat BS about no trace of a plane at the pentagon?

Ummmm, what year is it again? :thepan: Sorry guys it was news to me!!! :rolleyes:


http://home.earthlink.net/~awinkelried/images/smileypoll1/tinfoil_hat.gif (tin foil hat smiley)

All we need is some shadowy figures on the grassy knoll, a few black helicopters, and a CIA truck full of crack to complete the conspiracy.

When the Twin Towers fell, they didn't find a single computer or desk either. Do you suppose some dark force went in that morning and removed them all?

PT Barnum was right.

Yeah, a bunch of us went all over this stuff a year or so ago...

1) Conjecture without evidence is just that.
2) An airliner full of people and gas is little more than a large aluminum arrow. It is not at all suprising that it did not make a 'huge, gaping hole' in the side of the Pentagon. It did enough damage as it was. The Pentagon is a helluva big building, and substantially more solid than the Towers were. A plane hitting it would disintegrate more than you might think. Compared to the Pentagon, the ground is quite soft.

3) And, most telling, if what hit the Pentagon wasn't Flight 77, where the hell did Flight 77 go? It never landed anywhere else, did it? Did anyone else report a large commercial airliner crashing somewhere in the world that day?

All the eyewitness accounts who said "it sounded like a missile", how many of them have ever actually HEARD a real missile, not a hollywood one? Besides which, eyewitness accounts of ANYTHING are generally not worth much. "Eyewitnesses" have seen Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich.

Where did the missile come from? Someone drive an F15 up 14th Street without us seeing it? Does Osama have a submarine that swam up the Potomac that day?

The reason that not a huge amount of wreckage from the '57 was found was because it burned. Aluminum tends to do that in the middle of 80,000 pounds of jet fuel. So do human bodies. So did a large chunk of the Pentagon.

It's all nonsense. Why must people make a bad situation worse by seeing what's NOT there?

Seems to be a big topic of discussion over on RSW as well...

http://racingsouthwest.com/forums/showtopic28695.htm

I've concluded that it was indeed a 757. I do wish the government would release any additional video of the 757 flying over the area though.

PT Barnum was right.

As I said, I cannot account for how much [or little] of the video is factual. Only stated that it makes you think. No need to be insulting....if this was directed toward me.

Wow that was interesting! Thanks for the link :thumbsup: Gives ya something to think about...although we will never REALLY know lol

As I said, I cannot account for how much [or little] of the video is factual. Only stated that it makes you think. No need to be insulting....if this was directed toward me.


Never would think of insulting you, Rolex - you're a very bright commentator on this site! My remark was directed toward the people who produce and distribute such nonsense. They really believe in the tinfoil hat system.

Wow that was interesting! Thanks for the link :thumbsup: Gives ya something to think about...although we will never REALLY know lol

I think it's pretty safe to say we know that a 757 flew into the Pentagon. Although no large pieces of the plane survived the impact and fire, several "small" parts were found that are from the engines of the 757 (how many large pieces of the 767s did they retrieve from the WTC ?). No missiles use the same engine type. The aircraft and the people on board flight 77 did fail to land or return once they boarded and took off. Unless of course the UFOs got them, but then no one reported a missing 9 seconds ;)

It's like reading the Da Vinci Code. Makes a great read, but once one starts believing the fiction, simply because it gets laced with some loose facts, it starts to become a little silly. :)

Eye witness reports are notoriously unreliable.

OMG you two work for the FBI don't you? :hide: :histeric: Just kidding...yeah you are right. People aren't always a reliable source. I like stuff like that though, and I LOVED reading the Da Vinci Code ;)

I think it's pretty safe to say we know that a 757 flew into the Pentagon. Although no large pieces of the plane survived the impact and fire, several "small" parts were found that are from the engines of the 757 (how many large pieces of the 767s did they retrieve from the WTC ?). No missiles use the same engine type. The aircraft and the people on board flight 77 did fail to land or return once they boarded and took off. Unless of course the UFOs got them, but then no one reported a missing 9 seconds ;)

It's like reading the Da Vinci Code. Makes a great read, but once one starts believing the fiction, simply because it gets laced with some loose facts, it starts to become a little silly. :)

Best post yet!

Never would think of insulting you, Rolex - you're a very bright commentator on this site! My remark was directed toward the people who produce and distribute such nonsense. They really believe in the tinfoil hat system.

:highfive: :thumbsup: Sorry. And I won't wear my tinfoil hat anymore...but I'm keeping the tinfoil over the windows! :p


Eye witness reports are notoriously unreliable.

I recall a television program within the last year that touched on the subject of eye witnesses. A fake crime was staged in a public place in broad daylight. Several of the eye witnesses were questioned in detail about the appearance of the suspect; ie his approximate height and weight, race, clothing, etc. Only one of the 25 [or so] people interviewed came anywhere close to an accurate physical description. Some were do far off it was downright comical. I was surprised to see how many were wrong about something obvious like color of clothing. Short answer...you're right.

I recall a television program within the last year that touched on the subject of eye witnesses. A fake crime was staged in a public place in broad daylight. Several of the eye witnesses were questioned in detail about the appearance of the suspect; ie his approximate height and weight, race, clothing, etc. Only one of the 25 [or so] people interviewed came anywhere close to an accurate physical description. Some were do far off it was downright comical. I was surprised to see how many were wrong about something obvious like color of clothing. Short answer...you're right.

Wow I would've loved to see that. You would never think that people would be so unreliable. Funny thing is people probably REALLY TRULY thought that was what they saw. If you asked how sure they were about it most probably would've said 99% sure. That is so interesting.

OMG you two work for the FBI don't you? :hide: :histeric:

Even worse in this case, the FAA :eek:



Speaking conspiracies, I used to believe pretty strongly in a cover-up on the JFK assasination and that multiple shooters were involved. But after examining some of the real evidence out there and learning of a couple of other facts over the past 1.5 years, I've now become a real strong believer in Oswald was the lone shooter and there was no real conspiracy there.

Even worse in this case, the FAA :eek:



Speaking conspiracies, I used to believe pretty strongly in a cover-up on the JFK assasination and that multiple shooters were involved. But after examining some of the real evidence out there and learning of a couple of other facts over the past 1.5 years, I've now become a real strong believer in Oswald was the lone shooter and there was no real conspiracy there.

Yeah I've seen a few specials on it....the "magic bullet"...I definitely enjoyed watching it. I am interested in this kind of stuff but at the same time it is kind of annoying because some things we will just NEVER know.

Do you think "we'll" ever know in our lifetimes whether there is intelligent life that exists in the Universe and / or has visited this planet ?

Is there intelligent life other than us in the universe? Yes it is highly likely that there is.
Have they visited Earth? Very doubtful.

Even worse in this case, the FAA :eek:

I worked at the FAA Technical Center in Pomona, NJ on 9/11 (and before and after, actually..). It's the primary research, programming, and testing arm for the FAA, along with a facility in Oklahoma City.

I was told there are radar systems there that can see any plane any time anywhere over the US airspace. They can actually control a flight anywhere throught the US if need be.

Let me tell you, there were some really shaken up people there that morning. And the rest of that day was no picnic either.

Is there intelligent life other than us in the universe?

This presumes intelligent life HERE. :) Not always sure I'd endorse that.:worship: :crybaby: :alchi: :bighead:

My fondest dream, before I shuffle off this mortal coil, is to have science deliver us proof positive of I/L elsewhere. That would make my day.

The universe as we know it, though, if awfully big. And probably bigger than we know. Odds are very small that we'll get a postcard from Alpha Centauri anytime soon, but sooner or later, we will.

Let's just hope they don't contact Illumina first. :dance:

I don't know that I like the idea of life on other planets :hide: It is true though that it would be an awful waste of space if we were the only ones in the universe.

I worked at the FAA Technical Center in Pomona, NJ on 9/11 (and before and after, actually..). It's the primary research, programming, and testing arm for the FAA, along with a facility in Oklahoma City.


Ahhh Hah !! So you are the bastages to blame when we see Mods come out that says " Was tested by the Tech Center before being implemented" and the bloody things make our systems worse. ;)



Is there intelligent life other than us in the universe? Yes it is highly likely that there is.
Have they visited Earth? Very doubtful.

I tend to lean this way also, although we may have been visited by "probes" or some form of automation vs the actual life form. More or less like we do when we check out a new system or planet. Send our automation first, before the actual explorers. Especially given the vast expanse we're talking about.

Ahhh Hah !! So you are the bastages to blame when we see Mods come out that says " Was tested by the Tech Center before being implemented" and the bloody things make our systems worse. ;)


The operative word in my post was "workED"...4/01 to 4/02

I worked on some support duties for the DARC En-Route radar guys. It was kinda scary knowing that the backup radar controllers for all en-route flights were 80s-vintage IBM XTs....

I didn't really care for the environment there, though. It's 20% Govt Employees, and 80% contractors, and the G/E's think their poop don't stink, and the contractors just come in for the money. I worked as a sub for a sub for a sub, and we lost our budget after 9/11. See ya Later, Jimbo.. :)

I was there for a year, and knew only about 25 people by name. Very unfriendly place.

This presumes intelligent life HERE. :) Not always sure I'd endorse that.:worship: :crybaby: :alchi: :bighead:


Agreed.
Considering the stupidity I see in people everyday I wonder if any life out there looking for intelligent life just passed us by...

I tend to lean this way also, although we may have been visited by "probes" or some form of automation vs the actual life form. More or less like we do when we check out a new system or planet. Send our automation first, before the actual explorers. Especially given the vast expanse we're talking about.

I doubt probes... More likely a signal that we aren't intelligent enough to pick up yet... Besides we've been considering ourselves intelligent for how long? about 10000 years? and thats a generous amount. It takes the light of most stars millions of years to reach us and the same for our light to reach them. How are they to know that our planet harbors intelligent life now when they are looking at how our planet was over a million years ago? They wont know, and so they likely wont send us anything yet. And it's very likely that they overlooked us already because of that, if they even saw our planet at all. The same goes for our perspective, if we see them as intelligent from earth right now then that means that they are likely way more advanced than us already.

Sorry for the threadjack.... I like astronomy stuff like that. lol :D

I doubt probes... More likely a signal that we aren't intelligent enough to pick up yet...

Sorry for the threadjack.... I like astronomy stuff like that. lol :D

Being a fan of astronomy stuff you understand the vastness of our universe. :)
But it's only vast if "we" still travel conventionally in vessels creeping along at light speed. Other planets that would have had millions of years to develop before ours could harbor life that travels by means we only have in concept, theory, or haven't even conceived of yet. :D i.e. worm holes, folded space, etc.

old video, total BS. lots of photoshopped pics and more BS.
this was actually addressed (the video) and if you google around a bit you will find the articles saying how much of that vid is wrong.

Being a fan of astronomy stuff you understand the vastness of our universe. :)
But it's only vast if "we" still travel conventionally in vessels creeping along at light speed. Other planets that would have had millions of years to develop before ours could harbor life that travels by means we only have in concept, theory, or haven't even conceived of yet. :D i.e. worm holes, folded space, etc.


Technically if you travel at the speed of light time is stopped for everything around you. You may be travilling for hundreds of thousands of years, but when you get to your destination it will be the same instance of time when you left, well for your destination anyway. You would be hundreds of thousands of years older. So it would basically be like going through a worm hole. One of the huge problems associated with light speed is that if you run into any particle of dust, your impact with it will destroy its atoms and create an explosion far bigger than anything we've created here on earth.

Plus, it's easy for light to go that speed because it has no mass at all which should pin its velocity at infinity. The ship that we would use would probably be absolutely HUGE. It would take tremendous amounts of energy to get it up to speed, much more energy than from that explosion that you created from running into dust particles.

Technically if you travel at the speed of light time is stopped for everything around you. You may be travilling for hundreds of thousands of years, but when you get to your destination it will be the same instance of time when you left, well for your destination anyway. You would be hundreds of thousands of years older. <snip>

Other way around, my friend. At speeds approaching the speed of light, the moving vehicle experiences a SLOWING down of time, while the rest of the universe 'ages' normally. A space-faring traveller who wandered the stars for 10 years of "ship's time" at near-light speeds, would return to an Earth hundreds of thousands of years advanced beyond when s/he left.

CIWS is on the right track (or should I say "glide path"...lol) when he mentions other more advanced intelligences perhaps not bound by the speed of light.

Science has pretty well established that "life", as least as we know it, is fairly easy to establish, and seems to hang on pretty well. Recent discoveries on frozen moons of Jupiter bode well for the existance of SOME sort of life there, not to mention the billions of other possible locations.

Life is everywhere. We're nothing special. We're based on carbon and breath oxygen, but that doesn't mean, by a long shot, that ALL life has to.

I totally disagree with most of what everyone said.Those attitudes and posts make me want to shake things.Wow.It disgusts me how some people can put so much trust into a government that is so untrustworthy.I'll shut up now.

Just because I may not believe a conspiracy theorist about a portion of the 9/11 attack, certainly doesn't mean I'm fully trusting of the goverment either. But then again I'm trying to think back to an administration I did "trust"......... I don't think there was one back to the point I was a little kid that didn't care. I know better. I can think of a couple of instances when I was in the military and took place in certain operations where what was reported to the public isn't exactly what really happened, but then again I also understand why it was reported the way it was.
However the pentagon strike was pretty much as reported. Al Qaeda members hijacked a 757 and flew it into the building. Even Al Qaeda admits to doing it and is proud of their successful martyr mission.

I totally disagree with most of what everyone said.Those attitudes and posts make me want to shake things.Wow.It disgusts me how some people can put so much trust into a government that is so untrustworthy.I'll shut up now.I agree. In the case of the Pentagon, there was not enough heat for total meltdown of the plane and everything in it. There would have been more damage. Engines were indeed found but they were not engines from a 757 but a much smaller aircraft. I believe we have been fed a line of bullshit from the government and the media. I dont think we will ever know the truth about what happened and that we may not want to know the truth cause it will change everything.

Each of you may choose to trust our government or not. One thing our government will openly admit is the public is [and always will be] kept on a strict "need to know" basis about all things. Who among you will deny that?

85Evergreen and Destroyer - You guys are missing the point. If the conspiracy theorists are correct, they have to provide proof of an alternative explanation in order to logically supplant the one provided. These guys are not far removed from the nutballs and hoaxters with video of the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot.

Again, I ask - if it was not Flight 77, where did Flight 77 go? That is the question that must be answered before any conjecture about smaller planes, missles, and the like.

However, I do APPLAUD your mistrust of the "guv'mint" - I've mistrusted them since the days of Andrew Jackson. They rob, cheat, lie, steal, philander, wear stupid clothes, and don't always honor the Sabbath. I say, nuke 'em from orbit...

A healthy scepticism is good - but be logical in your scepticism, not inflammatory. Don't believe outrageous claims that have no basis in fact. Don't believe people when they say "It's for your own good." Don't believe ads that promise you the pretty girl if you drink the right kind of beer or drive the right kind of pickup. Don't believe that opinions, however strongly held, outweigh fact.

Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor and Big Education DON'T know what's best for you - only you do. Don't let them push you around.

When I was your ages, I felt exactly the same way. I was in my early 20s during the time of Watergate and Spiro Agnew and those crooks, so I know how you feel. 9/11 was a watershed event that has altered the way things are in the world, similar to 10/12/1492 and 8/6/1945.

BUT, life is too short, and there are too many good things about it to obsess about government chicanery, untold versions of events, and things of that nature. Go outside on a nice day and look up at the sun and marvel at the way nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms 93 million miles away makes life possible here on earth. Take a walk in a park and enjoy looking at a pretty girl. Pet the next dog you meet. Listen to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. After doing things like that, you'll realize that GWB and all his crooked cronies don't really mean a thing.

I agree. In the case of the Pentagon, there was not enough heat for total meltdown of the plane and everything in it. There would have been more damage. Engines were indeed found but they were not engines from a 757 but a much smaller aircraft. I believe we have been fed a line of bullshit from the government and the media. I dont think we will ever know the truth about what happened and that we may not want to know the truth cause it will change everything.

http://racingsouthwest.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=28695&view=findpost&p=455082

*shrug*

I totally disagree with most of what everyone said.Those attitudes and posts make me want to shake things.Wow.It disgusts me how some people can put so much trust into a government that is so untrustworthy.I'll shut up now.

I agree with JimHare... No way I trust the government, but I still hold that a 757 hit the pentagon.

"85Evergreen and Destroyer - You guys are missing the point. If the conspiracy theorists are correct, they have to provide proof of an alternative explanation in order to logically supplant the one provided. These guys are not far removed from the nutballs and hoaxters with video of the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot. "..................Proof?. There has been tons of proof presented on the subject. Somebody will always shoot it down saying the proof is a hoax or some conspirator fabricated it. Nobody really wants the truth.


"A healthy scepticism is good - but be logical in your scepticism, not inflammatory. Don't believe outrageous claims that have no basis in fact. Don't believe people when they say "It's for your own good." Don't believe ads that promise you the pretty girl if you drink the right kind of beer or drive the right kind of pickup. Don't believe that opinions, however strongly held, outweigh fact. "
............................so using Axe body spray wont make women wet themselves when I pass by them?. Damnit!





"BUT, life is too short, and there are too many good things about it to obsess about government chicanery, untold versions of events, and things of that nature. Go outside on a nice day and look up at the sun and marvel at the way nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms 93 million miles away makes life possible here on earth. Take a walk in a park and enjoy looking at a pretty girl. Pet the next dog you meet. Listen to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. After doing things like that, you'll realize that GWB and all his crooked cronies don't really mean a thing."....................................Beethoven's ninth symphony?, not a chance. Enjoy looking a pretty girl? Always but it sometimes makes the wife irrate. Pet the next dog I meet?, I hardly ever pet my own. Realize that GWB and his crooked cronies dont mean a thing?, I wish that were true but since were gazing at the sky and listening to Beethoven and all that crap we might as well try to believe that.



"

..Proof?. There has been tons of proof presented on the subject. Somebody will always shoot it down saying the proof is a hoax or some conspirator fabricated it. Nobody really wants the truth.

Even when "proof" is presented showing burned parts in the building that only come from a 757 and not a missile or some other aircraft. Some folks deny it and still say that is a lie or hoax. There is no truth, only individuals opinions based on their perspective of a given situation.

BUT, life is too short, and there are too many good things about it to obsess about government chicanery, untold versions of events, and things of that nature. Go outside on a nice day and look up at the sun and marvel at the way nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms 93 million miles away makes life possible here on earth. Take a walk in a park and enjoy looking at a pretty girl. Pet the next dog you meet. Listen to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. After doing things like that, you'll realize that GWB and all his crooked cronies don't really mean a thing.

One of the best things ive ever read on these forums.Very well said,i totally agree.